[GavinMcG]

How much First Amendment history and jurisprudence do you know? There's a naive view that speech is speech, and it's all protected, but that is an absolutely radical view compared to what "free speech" has meant for most of the post-Enlightenment period.

[dalbasal]

What does this have to do with the article or the comment?

Are you saying that a judge's address is not free speech" in this post-Enlightenment (unenlightened?) period.

[GavinMcG]

The comment said that it is without any question speech protected by the 1st Amendment. My comment is obviously following up on that.

I do not think it is clear that publishing a judge's address is the kind of speech that is necessarily protected by the 1st Amendment, and certainly not the kind that would have been considered inherently worthy of protection around when the 1st Amendment was written. And I suspect the claim that it is "without question" is a naive one.

[jdkee]

I will answer. Publishing the address of an individual is absolutely protected by the First Amendment unless it can be reasonably deemed a true threat, or an incitement to violence, under the appropriate judicial tests.

[dalbasal]

Fair enough. Apologies for the confrontational tone.